The Critical Thinking Initiative

Thanks for reading Actual Intelligence with Dr. Steve Pearlman! This post is public so feel free to share it.Thanks for reading Actual Intelligence with Dr. Steve Pearlman! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Want Your Kids Off Their Phones: They Just Told Us How to Do ItIn a new Harris poll conducted with The Atlantic, kids have reminded us about the importance unstructured, unsupervised play for the development not just of their actual intelligence, but of so many related developmental factors: critical thinking, problem solving, self-efficacy, social maturity, and, well, you name it.According to the article, What Kids Told Us About How to Get Them Off Their Phones, by David Graham and Tom Nichols, the Harris poll surveyed 500 kids between 8 and 12 years old, most of whom have phones and not only are on social media, but also interact—unsupervised—with adult strangers through social media or games. Yet, most aren't allowed out in public without adult supervision, even though, as the article states, “according to Warwick Cairns, the author of How to Live Dangerously, kidnapping in the United States is so rare that a child would have to be outside unsupervised for, on average, 750,000 years before being snatched by a stranger,” statistically speaking.But modern parents, concerned about dangers in the real world, relegate their kids to online interactions in part under the guise of their safety. As the authors put it, “because so many parents restrict their ability to socialize in the real world on their own, kids resort to the one thing that allows them to hang out with no adults hovering: their phones.”If there are operative words in that quote, they are “no adults hovering.” What kids report is that more than anything else, they want play that does not involve adult supervision.Of course they do. Why? Because, based on overwhelming amounts of research, our brains evolved with free play as a primary means of cognitive and social development. And that's not just true of humans, by the way. Studies on animals reinforce the point. For example, kittens who were not permitted free play also never developed they social skills they needed as adults. So, is should not be surprising that human children are meant to play with each other, in mixed groups, without supervision, figuring out how to get along, create games, test their own ideas, etc.If you want a sense of just how important and powerful free play is, then consider just one of many recent studies: Advocating for Play: The Benefits of Unstructured Play in Public Schools,Heather Macpherson Parrott and Lynn E. Cohen. The study examined the impact of increased free play time for kids in school, which found improvements in the following areas:· desire and ability to learn/focus,· mood,· social interaction,· cooperation,· problem solving,· independence, and· self-advocacyAll said, whereas the evidence about the harms of smartphones of child development is mounting fast, unsupervised free play helps young brains develop in just about all of the ways that they need to develop.So, though it might take just a little coordination with other parents, give your kids what they want (even they specifically don't know that they wan it): free play with other kids that's not (generally) under your watchful eye. Take their phones away and then drop them at a park, a backyard, a basement, etc. and tell them to have fun. And if they complain that they are bored, then tell them to figure out what to do, because that's exactly what their brains need to learn anyway.What I mean by that is that it is healthy for their brains to work through being bored, figure out how to resolve social conflicts, and invent what to do next, including, and most especially, adapt to changing circumstances. All of that happens through free, unsupervised play. So, sometimes the key to excellent parenting isn't parenting more, but parenting less.As Max Bekoff wrote, “Play is training for the unexpected.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

Is ChatGPT dumbing down your kid? It is and here's what you can do.A new MIT study reveals the powerful consequences of artificial intelligence on actual intelligence, and guess what? Simply (and terrifyingly) put, the use of artificial intelligence undermines your child's actual intelligence. In short, when children don't think for themselves, they don't learn to think for themselves. That should surprise no one.I'll get to the disturbing details of the study in a moment, but let me first explain why these outcomes were obvious and inevitable. In a nutshell, the brain functions like a muscle insofar that it becomes stronger when it is used and atrophies when it is not used. I could list a thousand additional factors that affect thinking, but that simple premise really is enough for this discussion.And when I say that the brain functions like a muscle, most people think I'm speaking overly metaphorically. I'm not. While the brain, of course, isn't actual muscle tissue, its functioning is remarkably similar. Much in the way that exercising muscles builds more muscles, exercising the brain builds the brain—literally. Every single time we engage in a thinking act, the brain builds more wiring, such as synapses through synaptogenesis, for that thinking act. On the flipside, the brain not only allows existing pathways to diminish when they're not used, it actually overwrites existing pathways with new ones.Watch this play out in the MIT study …The MIT StudyThat study is Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task, by a team of researchers led by Dr. Nataliya Kosmyna. The scientists broke a group of students down into three essay-writing groups: An “A.I.-assisted” writing group that used multiple LLMs (not just ChatGPT), a “search engine” group, and a “brain-only” group. The students then engaged in three writing sessions while the researchers monitored their brain activity using an EEG. Each student was interviewed after each session, and all of their writing was assessed by humans, as well as an A.I.So, what happens when one group is required to use their brains more than the other groups? Would it shock you to know that the group that needed to do their own thinking actually thought more? I hope not, not anymore than it should be surprising that a group of kids who practiced hitting a ball did better at hitting a ball than a group of kids who watched a robot hit a ball for them. (Okay, that's not a perfectly fair analogy to the A.I. usage in this case, but it illustrates the point.)And the point is that brain-only group performed better and scored higher on their essays. But that's not the most important outcome for us. What's more important is that “the brain-only group exhibited the strongest, widest-ranging networks” of brain activity, while the group with A.I. “assistance elicited the weakest overall coupling.” In other words, the brain-only group thought a lot; the A.I.-assisted group did not. Do you remember what we said about what happens when the brain “muscle” isn't used?But it gets worse. The researchers brought those two groups back for a fourth session and switched their roles. They gave the A.I. group a brain-only writing task and the brain-only group an A.I. writing task. And here's what's so important: the brain-only group still performed better, even when using A.I., and the A.I. group still performed worse, even when given the opportunity to think for themselves. Or should I say, it did worse because they now had to think for themselves.Over the first three brain-only writing assignments, the brain-only students built their brains for the task, and they built mental frameworks (read: habits) to rely on when engaging those tasks. Thus, that they then “gained” an A.I. assistant did not suddenly degrade all of the wiring that their brains built. But the A.I. group, when suddenly given the opportunity for a brain-only task, not only had built no wiring for accomplishing that task, it also, and this is the most critical part, created wiring and mental frameworks for using A.I. instead.What that means in a nutshell, and these are my words not those of the study, is that the brain-only group got smarter and the A.I. group not only failed to become smarter, they got dumbed down—they became habituated to relying on A.I. Thus, when given the opportunity to do so, they were incapable of thinking as well as the brain-only participants did.All of that should be concerning enough, but there's more. In addition to the direct cognitive effects, the researchers also found that brain-only participants “demonstrated higher memory recall” and engagement of thinking-related brain areas compared to the A.I group. Meanwhile, compared to the brain-only group, the A.I. participants reported lower “ownership of their essay,” which is an educator's way of saying that they didn't care about it as much and did not feel as though it was their own.Thus, to sum it all up, A.I.-assisted writing made the kids perform poorly, made them dumber, and made them less invested in their own thinking and writing.What to doIn light of this study, one school of “thought” could be that since everyone is going to rely on A.I. in the future anyway, kids who do so will be no worse off than their peers, and using A.I. might free up time for them to do things that are more valuable than writing essays, which, again, they won't really ever need to write on their own anyway because A.I. will be there to “assist.” Those who subscribe to that position probably should stop following me here at Actual Intelligence right now as we will be rather inclined to disagree.The other school of thought is that thinking skills, such as those developed through writing, which research repeatedly shows is the best way to teach critical thinking, are far more important than any and all expediencies achieved through A.I. assistance. Let me rephrase that: If you want your kids to build their brains rather than have them degenerate into relatively useless gelatin that can only write A.I. prompts or order burrito online, then keep their brains as far from A.I. as possible.Obviously, there's not much that you can do with your college-aged kids other than share this information with them and hope they make the right decisions. But for kids still under your roof, there are things you can do:1. Share this information with them. Most kids don't want to become dumber; they do value their ability to think. So, take time to explain, and then reinforce, the consequences of A.I. In fact, start thinking of A.I. as something about which you need to begin messaging no differently than alcohol, drugs, and sex.2. Ask them how they use A.I. Understand their current relationship with A.I., and please keep in mind that the MIT study does not speak to other ways that students might interact with A.I. beyond this one context. Using A.I. in other ways might be more or less consequential.3. Check their work: There are plenty of sites out there that scan essays to see if they were written by A.I. Those sites are not perfectly reliable, but they might offer useful information about what your kid is up to.4. If you want to get serious, have your kids download all their source materials before writing, then shut of their internet while they write. Take away the temptation; make them use their brains.ConclusionThe implications of A.I.-based “thinking” work are becoming clear, but for anyone who has thought about it or who values thinking, they're also not surprising. Every time we use A.I. to “assist” our thinking, it not only prevents us from thinking, it degrades our capacity to think in the future.Worse—much, much worse—is that those of you reading this built your brains before A.I. existed, which means that even if you gravitate to using A.I. now (please don't), you've got a lot of “muscle” built up to abate its consequences. A.I. will still degrade your thinking, but those sound neural pathways you built up all your life won't all turn to jelly overnight.But for your kids, it's different. Their neural pathways are still in the process of building up for the first time. Even though we are all always rewriting our brains, kids' brains have not even fully developed, so whatever they habituate to will become hardwired moving forward. Consequently, kids who are raised as A.I. natives might never develop their brains for thinking in the same way yours did. And that will not only affect their lives, but a generation of lesser-thinkers will affect all our lives.But there's good news! Somewhere down the line, kids who actually learn to think for themselves will stand out against the emerging generation who might not. So, if you can raise your own child to think critically, they might just be among the few who lead the world to a better place.And that, once again, is why actual intelligence is so important. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

We finally have emerging research on Artificial Intelligence's consequences for actual intelligence.  If you're an educator or parent--or if you're anyone who just thinks that thinking is important--then you need to learn about this study.  It offers hard evidence that our young people are in danger of diminished thinking skills for life. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit pearlmanactualintelligence.substack.com

Stuck in a mental rut?  Need a way to break out of your current thought patterns?  Want to unlock and unleash your creative, divergent, disruptive thinking skills?  Who doesn't? Listen to learn how!

More Headagogy coming soon!  Also, check out The Critical Thinking Institute pdocast, with me!!!

Steve interviews Louis E. Newman, author of Thinking Critically in College: The Essential Handbook for Student Success.  What's the relationship between thinking and studentship?  How can we -- and why should we -- move students to think about disciplinarity?  Are colleges promoting the thinking of which Newman advises students?  And how can they benefit from his ideas regardless?

Is ChatGPT friend or foe?  Should the whole world, as Australia has done, relegate essay writing to inside classrooms?  Is "the academic essay dead"?  Or is ChatGPT, as some have contended, a tool for critical thinking that we should embrace as a new ally in teaching students?As Steve discusses, ChatGPT certainly is a revelation, but no one is really talking about why, and it might not be what you expect.

Continuing their discussion of the pedagogical, institutional, and societal implications of rubrics and rubricizing, Joe, Michelle, and Steve get into rubrics and questions of ...privilege and the expression of structuralized racismthe effort to dismantle public education through standardizationhow rubrics as a concept contribute to the undermining of teaching as a profession, and so much more.

Steve and the authors of Rubric Nation -- Michelle Tenam-Zemach and Joseph E. Flynn, Jr. -- get into it about all things rubrics and rubricization, as well as whatever it is that we are doing, good and bad, as an educational system regarding teaching, learning, democracy, assessment, studentship, dialogue, politics, critical thinking, teacher training, privilege, race, class, and our greater (and lesser?) humanity.  Spoiler alert: it's "a mess."  But that's what makes this discussion particularly deep and interesting.

Steve welcomes futurist Frances Valintine: Founder of MindLab--the Best Start-up in Asia Pacific as judged by Steve Wozniak and Sir Richard Branson in 2014.  Frances is a member of the New Zealand Hall of Fame for Women Entrepreneurs (2022), and named one of the top 50 EdTech Educators in the World by EdTech International (2016).  They discuss progressive teaching practices and the wide-scale implementation of change across New Zealand, and its implications for our conception of educational institutions worldwide.

Listen for an in-depth discussion of the rigamarole around academic rigor, including what might be a very surprising--though nonetheless perfectly sensible--root of its challenges.  Student vs. faculty conceptions of rigorG.I. infections"Summer School"

Part 2 on Jones's firing, including a cranky look at curious statements by NYU, and an uncomfortable look at time traveling through the academy.

Steve takes an in-depth look at NYU's expedited decision to fire distinguished Organic Chemistry professor, Dr. Maitland Jones, after receiving a petition from students complaining about his course.  What's really at the heart of NYU's actions?  What role did the petition play? What role should rigor play in education? And what in the world does the movie, Demolition Man, have to do with any of this?

Steve welcomes the University of Wyoming's own TK Stoudt and his students, Amy Bezzant, Maddy Davis, and James Roberts.  Hear about the triumph (and trials!) of peer assessment from an educator who's newer to implementing it, and from students who encountered it for the first time.  What really happens when we give Excalibur to Uryens?  Why should you have a campfire in your classroom?Should Maddie marry an NFL player?Learn the answers to all that and more!

Steve welcomes the University of Wyoming's own TK Stoudt and his students, Amy Bezzant, Maddy Davis, and James Roberts.  Hear about the triumph (and trials!) of peer assessment from an educator who's newer to implementing it, and from students who encountered it for the first time.  What really happens when we give Excalibur to Uryens?  Why should you have a campfire in your classroom?Should Maddie marry an NFL player?Learn the answers to all that and more!

Ken Bain, author  of  What the Best College Teachers Do and What the Best College Students Do, joins Headagogy to discuss his latest book, Super Courses: The Future of Teaching and Learning.  The discussion with Bain not only delves into examples of these courses and their relationship with problem based learning, but also into critical ideas for teaching and learning, such as why "expectation failure" is so absolutely critical.  Learn the steps you need to take to start your own "super course."

In this concluding episode on peer assessment, Steve conveys the research on peer assessment, learning outcomes, and soft skills.  There should be no doubts about its value, especially, in the words of Walter Lippman, "It takes wisdom to understand wisdom. The music means nothing if the audience is deaf."

Continuing his assessment into peer assessment as an important method of ungrading, Steve not only talks about how he implements it, but several other important issues, such as how peer assessment:De-emphasizes the focus on gradesRelieves students' stressFosters democratic ideals and an empowered populous, andIMPROVES learning outcomes.

In this first episode of a three part series, Steve delves into the hot topic of "ungrading" with a focus on the particular and unique value that involving students in assessment brings to the greater ungrading discussion.  Learn more about grades as the locus of power in academia, the unconscious forces behind grades, students' literal capacity (or lack thereof) to understand grades, the relationship between grades and social constructionism, and, most importantly, the movie, Excalibur.  

The continuation of the interview with Kieran O'Mahony.

This interview with Kieran delves into fascinating neuroscience about learning that can help transform what we do in our classrooms through understanding things like the Reticular Activating System, working memory, and neurotransmitters.  Kieran offers concrete things every educator can immediately adapt in order to improve their learning outcomes and their students' enjoyment of education.  At the same time, the interview delves into the remarkable ways our educational system, including practices still in place today, dis-formed itself around misunderstandings of scientific findings by the likes of B.F. Skinner, E.L. Thorndike, and Marion Diamond (to name a few).  

What is the relationship between STEM and creativity?  Or, at least, what's the perceived relationship?  And what happens when we invest millions of dollars and years of effort to improving STEM educational practices?  What happens cognitively when we do it well for just a few months?  All that and more, including a shoutout to Louisiana.

Steve interviews Dr. Cornelius N. Grove about his most recent book, A Mirror for Americans, which delves into the research as to why students in East Asia invariably outperform American students on international tests.  The discussion explores myths about education in East Asia, such as the misconception about drilling, and delves into educational and cultural differences that make students in East Asia so successful.  This podcast provides a wonderful mirror for American educators by establishing East Asian practices as a point of contrast and thus elucidating tacit assumptions we hold about education, assumptions we might otherwise overlook.

Steve tackles some of the controversy around Critical Race Theory (CRT), in part by examining its lineage back to critical theory and critical pedagogy.  In doing so, he delves into broader question of how power is wielded in the academy, and what the academy is as a power structure.  Curiously, also, Ferris Bueller.

What's "imposter syndrome" and how does it impact our students' relationship with us?  How does it impact our relationship with students?   Just how critical are our relationships with students with respect to their academic success and our achievement of desired learning outcomes?  What are simple things we can do as individual educators to build more meaningful relationships?  What are the larger cultural and institutional questions?Learn about all of that and more as Steve interviews Elon University's Peter Felton and Leo Lambert about their book, Relationship Rich Education: How Human Connections Drive Success in College.

Do you want to teach critical thinking but struggle to do so given how much content you need to cover?Do you feel departmental, institutional, or disciplinary pressures to cover certain material?What are the four major objections educators voice about teaching critical thinking relative to content?Why are critical thinking and content actually never at odds?What does the Brad Pitt movie, Moneyball, have to do with all of this?Find out all of this and more as Steve not only answers all of the above, but empowers you with the knowledge and responses you need to keep critical thinking at the forefront of education.

Jesse Stommel of the University of Denver, author of An Urgency of Teachers, and “ungrading” maven joins Steve for a thought provoking and, at times, joyously contentious discussion about inviting students to assign their own grades to themselves.  Ultimately, the conversation swerves into grading's and education's implications for society and politics.  But who could have seen that coming? 

Steve delves into A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence, by Jeff Hawkins, which holds immediate implications for the teaching of critical thinking as understood through the literal functions of neurons!  But contrary to the title, teaching critical thinking doesn't become easier through thousands of things; it actually becomes easier, and more successful, through very few.

Want to know what your colleagues mean when they talk about "critical thinking"? Want to know how to stimulate dialogue about it at your institution? Want to know why Steve is like Annie Wilkes?Two recent studies shed new light on how educators conceptualize critical thinking and, more importantly, which particular aspects of critical thinking they value most.  But while the studies in one sense empower educators to discourse about critical thinking at their institutions, they also expose some challenges to critical thinking education.  Ultimately, Steve uses the articles to offer specific, easily applied approaches to teaching critical thinking.TheCriticalThinkingInitiative.org/Podcasts

We're excited to welcome Zoe Weil from the Institute for Humane Education Zoe is the author of The World Becomes What We Teach and is a notable TedX contributor.  Zoe focuses her work on helping educators build "solutionaries" who tackle real world problems.  Join us as we discuss the overlays between her work and ours, and critical thinking in general.

A recent article in The New York Times argued that critical thinking is a dangerous "rabbit hole" and isn't the right tool for fighting "fake news."  Dave and Steve discuss the article's alternative, and, of course, advocate for stronger critical thinking in media literacy.  

Did you know that at any given point during an online lecture, 40% of students' minds are wandering?  Join Dave and Steve to learn about "persistence" vs. "transience" in memory, and how to improve your learning outcomes.

Dave and Steve return with a podcast on combating fake news and why we should all be jealous of Finland.  Also, the new Critical Thinking Initiative Online learning experience, and Steve's new book, America's Critical Thinking Crisis: The Failure and Promise of Education.

Join us for an exciting announcement and an interview with John Eyler, Ph.D., author of How Humans Learn: The Science and Stories Behind Effective College Teaching.   Wishing everyone wellness, safety, and satisfying teaching (or a much needed break!) in this time of COVID.

Given the sudden mass migration to online learning because of COVID19, The Critical Thinking Initiative offers this brief, "emergency" podcast about simple measures every instructor, K-Ph.D.--can take to ensure that the online learning experience is a positive one for the students.  Please feel encouraged to share this one with everyone you know who has suddenly had to transition their teaching online.

Steve and Dave delve into recent research on critical thinking growth throughout college. Learn the extent to which it is happening and why. Warning: this episode may contain some ranting.

Steve and Dave tackle the complex issue of how to respond to student work effectively. Spoiler alert: It's somewhere between a pat on the back and psychiatric analysis.

Mindfulness education is gaining popularity in academia, but does helping students get their Zen on also help them to think critically? Take some deep breaths, find your center, and start listening!

Steve and Dave engage an article by Daniel Willingham about whether or not, and how, critical thinking can be taught.  This podcast strikes deep into critical thinking education, taking on essential questions concerning transfer, deep structure, disciplinarity, and content knowledge.  How should we fundamentally conceptualize critical thinking's presence in the educational process?

Steve & Dave respond to an article and, more broadly, to the "ungrading" movement, which assert that grades interfere with deeper learning.  Listen in to find out why grades do, don't, and shouldn't hinder learning, and how we can use them constructively.  Also, a little known fact about Zeus.

Several faculty members from the University of Wyoming share their perspectives on critical thinking after a three-day workshop with Dave and Steve. This is a rare opportunity to listen to other educators' perspectives on incorporating critical thinking into their teaching practice.

Dave and Steve engage the questions and critiques around whether or not the term "critical" is the best one for the kind of thinking we want students to do. Do its connotations outweigh its intention? Is there a term that's better?

Steve and Dave welcome Jackson Nickerson, Ph.D., who is the Frahm Family Professor of Organization and Strategy at the Olin School of Business, and who founded the Leading Thinking program through Brookings Executive Education. This is a powerful conversation that culminates in the many risks for our students if we fail to forge forward with thinking-driven learning.

Steve and Dave look at the recent article from The Chronicle of Higher Education about James Madison University's X-lab, and they examine rising contemporary calls for opportunities for students to innovate and problem solve.  Are X-Labs the future of learning?  Should your school have one?  In related news, Steve drops a bomb about lucite.

Dave and Steve welcome Michael S. Roth, author of Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters.  Michael offers wonderful perspectives on the relationship between critical thinking, the liberal arts, and interdisciplinary.  He also raises critical perspectives about the importance of pushing students to step outside their own viewpoints about the world.

What's the relationship between certain video games and critical thinking skills?  According to some recent assertions, select video games promote critical thinking by creating rich worlds in which players must make difficult choices.  To what extent do those choices foster critical thinking?  And to what success are video games being employed in classrooms?  Also, why are Steve and Dave making obscure references to M.A.S.H.?  Find out the answers to all those questions on this episode!

Is PowerPoint "the viagra of the spoken word and a wonderful pill for flabby lectures"?  Steve and Dave tackle the research on one of the most widely used classroom tools.  They not only offer specific tips for modifying PowerPoint to invite more critical thinking, but also make obligatory connections to John Carpenter's classic film, They Live.  

Vipin Thekk of ChangemakerCommunities.org joins Dave and Steve to discuss the work he does in helping reshape schools and communities so that they prepare students for an unknown future. The discussion includes ways that critical thinking, empathy, and discourse will be vital to our students, as well as how to create change where needed.

Steve and Dave explore the relationship between grades and learning, including a brief look at the history of grades. Even though grading often fails to develop learning, they discuss how grading can actually play an important if not critical role in the cultivation of strong and authentic learning outcomes.

Special guest Anton Tolman, the lead editor of the book, Why Students Resist Learning: A Practical Model for Understanding and Helping Students, joins Steve and Dave in a discussion of how to convert the "signal" of student resistance into a force for educational growth.  Tolman discusses why student resistance is natural, his research on its causes, and strategies for addressing it, including metacognition.  

Dave and Steve tackle the controversial "Sokel Squared" hoax by academics who got fabricated articles published in academic journals. Join us for spirited commentary on what this hoax accomplishes, why it is dangerous, and how it possibly emerges from an erroneous conception of constructivism.